I personally like the 3-4 for ONE very important reason... once you have found your NT the rest of your defense is much easier to find talent for than a 4-3 is.

With so many colleges running the spread and althetes like Tebow, McCoy and Bradford becoming the norm... will the NFL adjust to a hybrid (running a PURE spread wouldn't work) offense that relies heavily on the spread?

It seems to me that it carries the same advantage that the 3-4 does... easier to find talent for it.

Again, I am talking more of a pistol/wildcat/spread-flex with enough traditional under-center formations to keep it interesting.

Let's try to think of what's NEXT here and not just jump into the "never worked in the past" mode... the people that think like that are always a step behind the curve.

I think if we learned anything from this last season it is that the spread works fine between the 20s. From the goalline, not so much.

We learned that it worked great FOR US between the 20s... other not so crappy teams were able to utilize effectively in the red zone as well (i.e. Dolphins, Pats, Steelers)

...

but the real point is not to say the spread is better ... just EASIER to find talent for... I don't think a probowl 3-4 defense versus a probowl 4-3 defense is BETTER... but it is easier to find players for. That is the logic that I think is going to see more and more spread-hybrids coming to the NFL.

I disagree. WHY can't it be your bread and butter IF you can also run under center ENOUGH to be versatile? What if the team ran a 80/20 spread/standard?

What do you do when a team neutralizes your spread? If you're the Steelers, you have a built in ability to go to a power running offense. There are probably at least a few games the Chiefs would have been able to win this last year if they could have changed it up. I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

What do you do when a team neutralizes your spread? If you're the Steelers, you have a built in ability to go to a power running offense. There are probably at least a few games the Chiefs would have been able to win this last year if they could have changed it up. I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

Except for the fact that the Steelers can't run the ball.

__________________
9/3/2016:

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

ball on the 7 and you can't even get 3.....yeah MU still has no QB and no line

They better have a litany of QBs, because most of them are going to get killed. QBs get hit more under the spread, and it hampers your ability to run the ball.

Yeah, you could run it successfully if you had the line of the '03 Chiefs, or if you have receivers like Moss and Welker who can beat 1 on 1 coverage.

What are the odds of being able to field either one of those units?

I disagree on the QBs getting creamed... a running or shotgun QB is more "prepared" for the hit than a QB in the pocket who often gets blindsided.

Last year proved that we can run it effectively everywhere except the red zone. Other teams COULD run it effectively in the red zone. My theory is that it's because we weren't even close to the talent level of the Pats or Steelers.

AND if you recall, our red zone offense suffered most from DROPS and ineffective running. The drops were bad luck/inconsistent wrs and have nothing to do with what offense you play. The lack of running could be due to the spread but I will argue it equally could be due to a GOD AWFUL OL. We had a rookie LT that showed promise and a veteran guard that played well. Other than that you could've replaced the rest of them with traffic cones and done as well.

I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

I agree with this entirely. I think our inability to do so may be due to Tyler's limits OR it may be because we half-assed our way all season and ended up with a hobbled together offense. Who knows what a full off season could produce.